click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
CSPAN 20
WHUT (Howard University Television) 5
CNNW 4
CSPAN2 3
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBCW 2
WETA 2
CNN 1
FBC 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 45
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45 (some duplicates have been removed)
enhancing and building more power grids. pakistan needs power. it needs access to energy. afghanistan needs power. if you create interdependency between these countries, especially countries that are not on friendly terms with each other, which will enhance the chances of stability to allot more more expensive projects could be pipelines and others, but at least the national grid, railroads. fortunately, pakistan is extending its railroad into kandahar. the railroad from central asia will connect now across afghanistan, north and south. we can really rebuild afghanistan as a crossroad or roundabout of trade. that is key. internally, improving access to capital in afghanistan by providing political incentives, in terms of political assurance, making more credit available for investment by international companies in afghanistan, allowing afghan companies to have access to easier credit -- these are the key issues that could help afghanistan on the economic front. more importantly, a clear message about the future of afghanistan that would give the investors and everyone else a sense of confid
applicable in pakistan. he had close relationships rhetorically with mullah omar and mullah omar reporter intervened on his behalf, again in 2006 to keep them in a leadership position in south waziristan. so does look like a pretty close operational relationship at least as far as it goes. for less than going to say just going forward is on the future of afghanistan, i could not agree more with what anand was thing about the money issue in afghanistan. i wrote a paper published here by new america called russian roulette, and i forget the subtitle, that runs through and as a comparison of the last days of the russian occupation in afghanistan in the late '80s with where we are today. frankly, i don't think from a sustainability of the afghan government standpoint we have done much better. and that's pretty depressing but i think that's the case. and we may have been worse. i think that a lot of ways you can make a strong argument that he was a more dynamic and creatively within hybrid car site. so the last thing though is where do we go going forward. and i think especially in the process
are important for the role of pakistan and many others. with that, let me turn to our three speakers, each of whom will speak for summer between six and ten minute roughly speaking and then we will open up to questions or dialogue with respect to the audience. we will start with jim, if you are ready, give you the floor. >> my response ability for afghanistan goes back to 2001 and is fair to say the time was present for creation of the current regime and i start by looking back and try to spot the things we did wrong at the time and it strikes me there were three fundamental errors two of which i perceive that the time and tried to do something about and one of which i failed to proceed entirely and did nothing about. one was the decision not to deploy any american or international peacekeepers in the country. we have a country with no police force and no army and we decided security would be an afghan responsibility after the fall of the taliban. i think that was a major mistake. the second was to allow the coalition we successfully built for the war and the peace conference disintegrate.
pakistan, with respect to the important issues regarding the region. we called the event "back to the future." some people have spoken before about this, and what we mean by that. i think we will let that emerged as the discussion goes on. we know we have a lot of fundamental issues to talk about. certainly, military presence has been an issue talked about in the newspapers all lot. governance is an important issue. technical issues, such as what type of agreements might be signed between the u.s. and afghanistan, are important. the role of pakistan. many others. with that, let me turn to our three speakers, each of whom will speak for six to 10 minutes, roughly speaking. then we'll open it up to dialogue, with the audience. i will give you the floor. >> my responsibilities for afghanistan go back to 2001. it is fair to say i was present at the creation of at least the current regime in kabul. i started by looking back and trying to spot the things we did wrong. it strikes me that there were three fundamental errors, two of which are perceived at the time and tried to do someth
years by the taliban. we succeeded against that. there are executions and -- pakistan is going through a very difficult time. and other of events there, they are all a source of concern for us. i can speak with satisfaction, the suffering that we have had, our schools are safer in the past three years, the great majority of girls go to school in afghanistan do if in safety and security. we have not had any major incidents. and this concern for families and students would be less and less a matter to think of. thank you, sir. >> this will conclude the program. i have one important announcement before i thank our remarkable speaker. please do not leave your seat until you hear the voice in the wilderness that will dismiss us. and only the afghan delegation will depart until such moment. on behalf of all of us, you have given us allot to think about. a lot of inspiration. women are lucky to have your support and we look forward to a wonderful future for your country. thank you so much. [applause] >> friday's news conference with president obama and president karzai. also, president karzai
steve as well about your deep knowledge of afghanistan and pakistan and the other bordering states. >> this is one that has taken a back burner. we are not that far removed from the election. the election was about by and large nothing more than the economy and which side could do it better. as a result almost every other issue gets pushed to the side, but we have, you know -- there are realtime tables in place in afghanistan about what we have pledged to do, what we will do. you talk about chuck hagel. what chuck hagel's role in all of that, if et wants to be secretary of defense. it's a complicated issue, and it's more complicated politically, andrea, simply because the american public -- this happened in iraq. it's clearly happening in afghanistan. the american public has tired of our involvement in these conflicts. this is not something new. this is something that has been long and coming. if you look at the history in polling at least of when that happens, public opinion almost never sort of sways back up to all of a sudden be supportive and think this was a battle worth fight
. affiliated movements have taken us beyond the core leadership in afghanistan and pakistan, including the middle east, and east africa, central asia, and southeast asia. although each group is unique, all aspire to advance al qaeda's agenda by stabilizing the companies in which they operate and attacking the u.s. and plotting to strike it u.s. homeland. in south asia, al qaeda continues to pose a threat from its base of operation in pakistan's tribal areas. in order to use that to carry a attacks against a homeland as well as our interests and those of our allies and partners in pakistan, afghanistan, india, and europe. the united states faces to counter terrorism charges -- a direct threat posed by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the individuals and charities that flow from the region to al qaeda and its affiliates from world. on this point particularly, i want to emphasize severing the pipeline is a major part of what we're doing in its administration. al qaeda has shifted its activities to the relative safe haven of northern mali where it is training fighters and other allied
pakistan and india were at a nadir. coins and with 9/11 and the subsequent bond process, a pakistani base -- terrorist group had conducted a large- scale terrorist attack on the indian parliament. the countries were close to war. very close to war. the idea that they would collaborate in some joint venture in afghanistan was more difficult to conceive then that might be now. relations have to some degree improved. i do not think that india and pakistan between them would be able to substitute for the kind of assistance -- [indiscernible] for some time to come. to the extent the country's -- countries could agree on some form of joint collaboration, i would not oppose it. but neither would i look to it to shoulder much of the load in the short to medium term. >> from rote. -- front row. >> i write the mitchell reports and also councilmember. fassel -- i wanted to ask the ambassador about his observations about cost and risk. and to do that in the context of american domestic political setting, just to say that 2014 is not just another year. it is midterms. i wonder if there is a way, if yo
is back from pakistan to determine if strikes are strickly targeted targeted on terrorists are making americans safer or creating a new generation ofant i-american militants. >> you are creating 1,000 morminds in people who will go in the ranks of the al qaeda and taliban and feel illegal activity happens it is a hostile one and something that has reaction. >> we will have more on the dron warfare in a moment. first on the crisis we are joined by the staff writer for defense and national defense for the hill. >> thank you for having me. >> what is the latest? officials say the assault is over but some prisoners are still being held. >> that's where the situation stands right now. you mentioned alger an special forces and the numbers regarding the hostages still on the -- at the facility, it is just as murky as the numbers coming out as who were killed and who escaped. some reports have said as many as two americans are still on the facility under lock and key by the militants who are there. again, reports vary. >> are
, or instead, a different kind of mission? and pakistan in particular, the safe havens that are in pakistan, what kind of policy will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason , should we have troops in afghanistan post-2014, at the invitation of the afghan government, will be to make sure that we are training, assisting, and advising afghan security forces who have taken the lead and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan and and interest the united states has, the reason we went into first place, is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghanistan. we believe we can achieve that mission in a way that is very different from the very active presence that we have had in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presence is in afghan villages, for example, has created. that will not be a strain if there is a follow-up operation because that will not be our responsibility. that will be th
personally intervened to resolve a diplomatic crises and difficult places from pakistan and afghanistan to egypt and sudan. and i really look forward to working with you on some of the challenging issues as it faces the country in the world but we start back to something and number of senators have referred to in your opening statement which you said. i just want to say i've been deeply encouraged by your response to senator shaheen's comments and senator rubio. we are sadly foreign commercial service woefully underrepresented and wherever opportunity to advocate for american business and american values and as you know i chaired to the hearings on this. we are about to come out with a report from the subcommittee and i would be interested as the first of my several questions and how you see has successfully competing with china which has a rapidly growing footprint across africa in both economic opportunities and in our differing values agenda and what that makes doing for and how you would address that as secretary e and senator coons were a terrific team with respect to africa and i
the region including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken in that regard and will look for more tangible steps because a stable and secure afghanistan is in the interest not only of the afghan people and the united states but of the entire region. and finally we reaffirmed the strategic partnership we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between two sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties with trade, commerce, strengthening institutions, development, education, and opportunities for all afghans. men and women, boys and girls. and this sends a clear message to afghans and to the region as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. now, let me close by saying that this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and make tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces still need to grow stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governance and development that delivers
with facilitation for talks. reconciliation requires constructive support from across the region, including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken, and look for more tangible steps, because a stable at future afghanistan is in the interest of not only the afghans and the united states but of the entire region. we reaffirmed the strategic partnership that we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties in trade talks, commerce, , education, and opportunities for all afghans, men and women, boys and girls. this sends a clear message to afghans into the region as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. let me close by saying this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and the tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces will still be growing stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governments at the ballot that delivers for the af
headquarters. he was an advisor to four president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country most vicious and violent enemies than dan mcchrystal -- stan m
and the soviets. from the pakistan border to the atlantic ocean, you will have something like this, get ready >> are they the same it. ideologically as al qaeda in iraq? >> there are experts that can talk about that. by and large what they represent is extreme for the political islamic theological movements including using violence with anybody that disagree with them. that is what is in common for all of these organizations. calling them al qaeda is loose association. a few years earlier, they invited the city terrorists in iraq to join them as well. so you get these offshoots that are only loosely connected organizations. but they do have a similar theological and political agenda. >> how much of a threat do they represent to americans here? >> of algeria is an important energy exporter and an important country. this is a threat to of jury out. we see the expansion of rebels and these groups coming in, this is a potent threat and a huge area that needs to be dealt with. >> to syria where the bbc team has found evidence of a massacre that takes place on the edge of palms. our international c
, a different kind of mission? those who are in the pakistan, particularly the safe havens that are in pakistan, what kind of police will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason should we have troops in afghanistan post 2014 at the invitation of the afghan government, will be to make sure that we are training, assisting and advising afghan security forces, who have now taken the lead for and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan, and an interest that the united states has, the very reason we went to afghanistan in the first place, and that is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghan soil. we believe that we can achieve that mission in a way that is very different from the very active presence that we have had in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presences in afghan villages, for example, have created. well, that's not going to be a strain that exists if there is a follow-up opera
president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country most vicious and violent enemies than dan mcchrystal -- stan mcchrystal. that makes him sound pr
laden and headquartered in pakistan probably matter a lot less now than a few years ago but what you have seen is that as we pit al qaeda in the core area in afghanistan and pakistan it splintered outward and moved outward. and now are you seeing, you know, like a virus trying to find a body in which it can find a weak host. it's moving out and becoming more powerful in places like yemen, somalia, libya, now mali. so it's moving further and further a field and there are so many weak states because this is where terrorists te rt. they take root in failed states there are so many failed states in africa it is not just mali there are a lot of other places and now increasingly in north africa too because of the upheavals that we've seen in the last several years. there's very weak states that cannot resist the incursions of these islamist terrorist groups so we are actually seeing an al qaeda which is morphing and changing an remains very dangerous i think but the danger is taking different forms from what it was when it was more centrally run and tightly controlled out of pakistan. that
weapon. pakistan is probably building more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world. pakistan is a very fragile system that can disintegrate at any time. we're not prepared for that. the whole challenge of the persian gulf, we're not prepared for that. i think it's accurate to say that by appointing the secretary of state and the secretary of defense that he has, john kerry and hagel, they're communicating accurately the minimalist approach to the world. you can make a case for that. but neither, neither of them nor the president has a positive vision of how you're going to deal with a worldwide virus that is increasingly destabilizing the planet. and that's what's happening from pakistan through north africa to syria and i think potentially in europe and the united states. >> i have less than a minute here. i need one-word answers from you. joe biden made a bit of a slip up talking about how hap he was going to be president of the united states. >> joe biden would be happy to be president of the united states and i think he is planning to run, if possible. >> quickly. >> i th
three questions. one is afghanistan, the sec is pakistan. with regard to afghanistan, i wanted to ask you about the first question relates to president karzai and the leches ahead of them. when he was here just a couple of weeks ago, i had the chance to visit with him in leader mcconnel's office and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in
. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable and historic. general casey at his retirement ceremony in 2010 said that the reality is that stan has
and the mideast around pakistan and afghanistan, as you quote on your -- close on your tenure i wondered if you'd share some important lessons learned from the time you spent in this post and enlighten us as to what congress can do to help respond and get in front of these threats as we move forward and related to that, if i may, assuming that you're going to say about increased engagement at the ground level. how do we do that in areas that are unstable where we need to depend on local government or local security forces that quite frankly we've seen don't have the ability to provide the type of security that our diplomats are going to demand? see you here. i thank you for your interest in looking sort of into the future. let me just make a couple of points. first, we have a lot of tools that we don't use as well as we should. i think we've abdicated the broadcasting arena where both in tv and radio, which are considered kind of old fashioned, media are still very important in a lot of difficult places where we're trying to do business. i think we have to get our act together. i would hope thi
. the terribly difficult challenge dealing with and reducing the flow of calcium ammonium nitrate from pakistan into afghanistan which finds its way into the roadside bombs that kill our troops, known as ied's. thank you for the work. the work on behalf of women throughout the world but also women and girls particularly in afghanistan and even though we are still in the throes of responding to the challenges in syria, the great work you have done on humanitarian assistance and other elements of that strategy we have worked together on. i also want to commend the words he spoke today about not retreating when it comes to getting that balance right queen engagement and also security. both high priorities. i was struck by and i am glad you were so is this a bit on page 3 of your testimony about -- you were so pacific on page 3 of your testimony. the recommendation by the board which now has found its way into the jake now is a set of 64 specific action items. you said 85% are on track to be completed by the end of march. what if any impediments and implementation do you perceive right now and are
down drone attacks on al qaeda affiliates in pakistan, yemen, will not use other counterterrorism resources to identify, locate and detain the terrorists involved in the death of our ambassador and others in libya. this inconsistent policy may stem from the president's hasty campaign promise to shut down guantanamo bay, gitmo, prematurely transfer detention facilities in iraq and afghanistan. in doing so the president effectively ended america's ability to detain and interrogate terrorists, depriving the f.b.i., the c.i.a. and other agencies of critical opportunities to obtain information on al qaeda networks. today, as the case of benghazi suspect harzi, has demonstrated, the united states is completely reliant on the cooperation of host countries to detain on our behalf and selectively allow access to suspects. as in the case of harzi, as demonstrated, this approach is fraught with diplomatic roadblocks, costing critical time and getting information from suspects to track terrorist networks. perhaps that is why president obama so often opts to use lethal drone strikes to kill te
that is not -- if we are all done facing it in mali, algeria, somalia, pakistan, looking at it as kind of separate issues, it is all one movement, all sol -- self perpetuating, and it is all motivated by our intervention. the french have united a very disparate group of islamist organizations and molly by intervening there. lou: and as michael is it out, the united states debated, as he characterized, and by the way, i am not sure that the national media even confronts that certain reality that the united states has lost. those are not words that trip easily off the american time. >> no, but these are the consistent notions, perceptions. absolutely. if you listen to them, read their statements, including the few weeks ago, you pretty much convinced that we have been defeated. we have been defeated in benghazi, and now, because you may see in a few weeks, statements by factions say we are now fighting the french. does not matter if they lose people on the ground. they're fighting now. the international community, of course, in this issue. the most important thing in my perspective is, who are we fi
afghanistan, pakistan? guest: the group in northern mali, it is making the news these days, is very closely tied. al qaeda and islamic maghrib were the first real franchise of al qaeda outside the middle east and south asia. this group had been formed in the 1990's to fight to overthrow the government of algeria. it metastasized over time. of syrians in north africa were the largest group present foreign fighters into iraq during the first stage of the u.s. presence over there. that led to five years ago when it formally allied itself with al qaeda, the first franchise. there's no direct command and control from al qaeda central, but they draw from the same equality and inspiration and one could argue and that they have been the most effective in recent days. host: here's a headline from the wall street journal -- why should americans care what is happening in mali? guest: this has become the most attractive place for jihadist around the world to gather especially since the french intervention occurred three weeks ago. foreign fighters coming into the region not only from across africa, but
an islamic overrun? what does it say about the reach of al qaeda now, not in pakistan or afghanistan, but in this new region, in north africa, and what, if any, policy does the obama administration have to combat? >> i think the algerian -- what we will remember about this week is not the gun measures and gun control proposals and maybe not president obama's second inaugural address for this reason. first of all, al qaeda is not done, unfortunately it has found new territory and the french are going in, to their credit to try and save mali and we are being slow, according to news reports, even providing backup help for them. the fact that -- i want to give them credit, the armed services committee of the house and the senate, would it ever happen in the past that the algerians would have felt they didn't have to let us know they were going in on a hostage rescue mission when americans were held hostage? not just not let us know, why didn't they ask for our help? we have a lot of assets in intelligence, and, we have a lot of well trained people who could become algerians for a day if
of calcium i am moan yum nitrate from pakistan into afghanistan which finds its way into the roadside bombs that kill our troops, known more popularly as i.e.d.s. and the work mentioned by senator boxer and others on behalf of women throughout the world, and also women and girls particularly in afghanistan. maybe thirdly even though we're still the throws of responding to the challenge in syria, the great work you've done on humanitarian assistance and other elements of that strategy that we've worked together on. also, i want to commend the -- not just the approach but the words you spoke today about not retrenching that renot retreating when it comes to getting the balance right between engagement and also security, both high priorities. i was struck by -- and i'm glad you were specific on page 3 of your testimony -- about the specifics on implementation, 29 recommendations by the board, which now has found its way into -- or i should say which now is a set of 64 specific action items. you said in your testimony, quote, fully 85% are on track to be completed by the end of march with a num
constructive support from across the region including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken in that regard and we'll look for more tangible steps because a stable and secure afghanistan is in the interests not only the afghan people and the united states but of the entire region. and finally we reaffirmed the strategic part they are shnersh last year. this includes deepening ties of trade, commerce, strengthening institutions, development, education, and opportunities for all afghans. men and women, boys and girls. and this sends a clear message to afghans and to the regions as afghans stand up, they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. now, let me close by saying that this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and make tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces still need to grow stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governance and development that delivers for the afghan people. and an end t
that they have focused so much on the afghan-pakistan area. that is sort of the core of al qaeda but there are all these nodes scattered throughout africa that obviously are a threat to western civilization. it is after they have taken their eye off the ball. bill: we'll hear about that tomorrow. three quick questions on this. do you think she has been honest publicly to this point? >> well you know she really hasn't said much publicly and certainly she was not the one that came forth on the sunday morning after the famous five programs that susan rice was on. i have talked to her and certainly saw her yesterday at lunch and talked to her a little bit about her testimony tomorrow. i think she has been forthcoming. i do. i just don't think it has been extensive. up until this time because of injury she sustained from a fall at her home, we have only had undersecretaries there but i have a sense that she --. bill: tomorrow is different, certainly. >> that's right. bill: do you expect bombshells that we have not yet anticipated, senator? >> i really don't expect any bombshells and t
number of canadian groups that have left the country to go from yemen to pakistan, afghanistan, and most notely somalia. >> many he say that were of the somalia and the information from the algerians is sketchy and points out terrorists often carry false travel documents. the algerian government has been eager to paint this attack which left nearly 40 hostages dead as being an international operation, not a local one. but the man believed to be the mastermind is mokhtar belmokhtar. analysts say he sent others to do his bidding in this operation. >> it would appear he sent an experience commander unit, really the a-team of his group to go and launch this attack that he outsourced it to them. >> a kman doe unit according to the prime mirm insister including militants from egypt, and other african regions and included algeria in that, wolf. but information on who did what is very sketchy. we hope to learn more in the coming days. >> and once you do, let us know. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >>> we're standing by to hear from the speaker of the house, john boehner. he'll be reablin
in part because over the last years, we have become accustomed in operating in pakistan, in iraq and afghanistan and yemen and elsewhere. and we do, as by necessity, rely on security officials to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people safe. and as i said in my opening statements, i have a lot of confidence in them, because most of the time they get it right. but i was also engaged -- and think this is what deputy secretary burns was referring to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threaten virmente, particularly in libya -- there were other places across the region we were also watching -- to try to see what we could do to support the libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country to deal with the many militias. we have many programs and actions that we were working on. i had a number of conversations with leading libyan officials. i went to libya in october of 2011. in fact shortly before the attack on benghazi, we approved libya for substantial funding from a joint state-d.o.d. account, c.t. capabilities and w.m.d. effor
an enormous amount of information about al qaeda in pakistan. the administration continues to use the intelligence every day in drone stripes. it is not just actable intelligence but how they operate. since the program was shut down we have seen the emergence of all paid in the arabian peninsula. -- of al qaeda in iridium pinto. we have had the emergence of al- shabab merging with out a this central. -- with al qaeda central. and al qaeda in africa. are we struggling in a way? the information we have on pakistan and the lack of information, is it harder to get the intelligence we need because we do not have this tool? >> one of the most important threads of information that i saw when i got there and still mom could 2006, late in the game, was detainee information. at are the suggested to you that i'm willing to adjust the detail program -- i already suggested to you that i am willing to adjust the detainee program. we have other petitions and sources and knowledge. we have a better sense of the imminence of attack, what state of danger we are in as a nation. i told you we entered
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45 (some duplicates have been removed)